Clawhammer 3400+ At 2.6GHz?

[lRageATMl]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Hey lRageATMl is that your cobra in your sig site? If it is list all specs and parts im acually interested in knowing whats in it. Im planing on getting a 1995-97 Camaro Z28/SS in nov, and im going to do alot of mods. Supercharger, exhaust, cams ect. JW thanx

SSXeon

yeah...go to my website for a list of mods.

I personally stray away from a supercharger unless you have money for a rebuild (casue you are gonna need one just never know when). I'm waiting around until TDC makes a twin turbo kit for my car. I don't know too much about LS1's, but go to www.LS1.com and post on there ...there will be tons of people to help you out.

 

[mechBgon]

If any certain someones are looking to evangelize for the Intel denomination, they might want to try helping people with Intel-related questions in the Motherboards forum from time to time. There are plenty of folks looking for advice on what to buy, how to upgrade, or how to troubleshoot Pentium4 systems over there... example example #2 example #3 Help some people out with your knowledge.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: lRageATMl

Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Hey lRageATMl is that your cobra in your sig site? If it is list all specs and parts im acually interested in knowing whats in it. Im planing on getting a 1995-97 Camaro Z28/SS in nov, and im going to do alot of mods. Supercharger, exhaust, cams ect. JW thanx

SSXeon

yeah...go to my website for a list of mods.

I personally stray away from a supercharger unless you have money for a rebuild (casue you are gonna need one just never know when). I'm waiting around until TDC makes a twin turbo kit for my car. I don't know too much about LS1's, but go to www.LS1.com and post on there ...there will be tons of people to help you out.

Z06's are $48k stock and 2003 cobra is $35k, not much more when you concider it alot faster. I just really hate mustangs, tho i respect you got a muscle instead of a ricer. And btw I know the LS1 well enought, the 93-97's have the LT1,s and I know them pretty well too. The supercharger is great, +135HP/85lb-tf torque for $3400 isnt bad

SSXeon

 

[lRageATMl]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: lRageATMl

Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Hey lRageATMl is that your cobra in your sig site? If it is list all specs and parts im acually interested in knowing whats in it. Im planing on getting a 1995-97 Camaro Z28/SS in nov, and im going to do alot of mods. Supercharger, exhaust, cams ect. JW thanx

SSXeon

yeah...go to my website for a list of mods.

I personally stray away from a supercharger unless you have money for a rebuild (casue you are gonna need one just never know when). I'm waiting around until TDC makes a twin turbo kit for my car. I don't know too much about LS1's, but go to www.LS1.com and post on there ...there will be tons of people to help you out.

Z06's are $48k stock and 2003 cobra is $35k, not much more when you concider it alot faster. I just really hate mustangs, tho i respect you got a muscle instead of a ricer. And btw I know the LS1 well enought, the 93-97's have the LT1,s and I know them pretty well too. The supercharger is great, +135HP/85lb-tf torque for $3400 isnt bad

SSXeon

Personal taste I guess...bit either way..American is the way to go

btw....I do have the upmost respect for teh Z06 and Ws6...i cna;t say much for teh camaro...i can't stand the way it looks, but from the performance aspect...I give it, it's due respect although it might not sound like it all the time.

 

[SaintGeorge]

Renault 5 GT Turbo any day of teh week. All the guys in the UK will agree

The difference in scene's between America and a lot of Europe is interesting. American engines are genrally much larger because fuel is so cheap for you guys. Also insurance is hell for larger engines in the UK because all of the cars that DO have 6 litre engines are ferrari's and such like, there's no half-normal cars (ones below about £150,000) with engines that big here. No way you could ever get a normal car with a large 4 litre engine for £20k in the UK, because no one with that sort of budget to spend on the car would be able to afford the fuel costs. Also why the modding scene is so massive here at the moment, you can get huge performance from normal cars, they just need the right bits in them. If only I could remeber the address for that 9.6 second VW Golf i saw the other week.... Arr.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: lRageATMl
Personal taste I guess...bit either way..American is the way to go

btw....I do have the upmost respect for teh Z06 and Ws6...i cna;t say much for teh camaro...i can't stand the way it looks, but from the performance aspect...I give it, it's due respect although it might not sound like it all the time.

Same with the mustang somewhat lol, I just really dont like Fords In general, and I hate the snakes looks too. But how can you hate the looks of the camaro, i mean


LOOK!!!!!!!!!

That is one sick SS!

SSXeon

 

[MadRat]

When I said:

1966+ = roughly 1609MHz = 12 x 133fsb (1600) COMPARE TO P4-1.9/400 or P4-1.8A/400
2033+ = roughly 1663MHz = 12.5 x 133fsb (1666) COMPARE TO P4-2.0/400
2100+ = roughly 1718MHz = 13 x 133fsb (1733) COMPARE TO P4-2.0/400
2200+ = roughly 1800MHz = 13.5 x 133fsb (1800) COMPARE TO P4-2.2/400

Basically the PR number is fairly equivalent to the true speed of the processor. At a factor of .81 the PR of 1966+ is equated to approximately (I said "roughly" above) 1609MHz, The closest 133fsb option would be 1600MHz, at a 12 times multiplier. You can figure in a little fudge factor here and there, but you want the difference from PR speed to TRUE speed to be insignificant.

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Now that would be cool. If Intel can pull that off, I'll register as an official Intel fanboy

LOL!!!!

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Eh, first off, spec is irrelevent to most people. Second, a P4 that's "equal" to a 2200+ would be a P4 2.2A, not a 2.26B. Third, in Anand's review of the 2200+, The P4 2.2A (or slower) beat the 2200+ in 5 out of a 11 benchmarks. The 2200+ (or slower) beat the P4 2.2A (or faster) P4 in 5 out of 11 benchmarks. The 2200+ and 2.2A essentially tied in the 11th (if you want to be technical, the 2.2A barely eeked ahead of the 2200+ by in insignificant margin). If you ask me, comparing an Athlon XP 2200+ with a P4 2.2A is pretty fair. And hardly enough to call the PR rating "crap".

[snippage]

lol Well, I'm guessing that BOTH CPU lines will be quite a bit cheaper on shortly after the 1st.

Yeah but remember they use PC-800 for the A's, and thats horrible.

Why does it seem like you always agree with my counterpoints, then bring up more inaccurate/irrelevent points for me to counterpoint? Anyway, PC-800 is hardly "horrible". In most benchmarks, the difference between PC800, PC1066 and PC2700 is practically insignificant. So to blame the results on the use of PC800 is silly.

When the i845G roundup with DDR333 cas2 comes, it will widen the gap a bit, and thats STILL handicaping the pentium 4s bandwidth, not till granite bay comes is really what i am stressing. When FULL 4.2gb/s bandwidth is accomplished with Dual channel DDR @ cas2, thats when I truly believe it will be fair to pit the P4 vs TBred/barton. But also when the TBred's @ 2400+ (1.9GHz) w/ 333Mhz fsb comes in october, there will be alot of competition And Im truly excited for amd(if jerry can finally leave) and intel

SSXeon

So, you're saying that PR rating is crap because P4s are faster than Athlon XPs, yet its not "fair" to compare XPs with P4s until some fancy new P4 chipset comes out?

IMHO .... granite bay did very well like I said before and I strongly dought it will be like Nforce (or Nhorse), it did well against PC-1066/i850E and only at cas2.5. So at cas2, there is no dought it will surpass i850E and can be compined with PC2100 @$100 for 512MB stick, remember when the 2400+ comes, PC2700 for the athlon will be common. With the granite bay it might be more for the board, but the memory is $30-50 less a 512MB stick then PC2700

Athlons can only USE PC2100, and 333FSB Athlons haven't been announced yet, but if AMD DOES release a 333FSB Barton, you can be sure that that, along with the 512KB cache, will provide a nice performance boost for the Athlons, as well.

You also have to take into account that after the 2.8GHz P4, in Q4 there will be the 3.06GHz with HT enabled. Making overall proformance 30% faster, and other benchmarks that way too. I like your PR raiting but they wont do it by 66PR , only by 100PRs, IMHO IT SHOULD look like this w/ i845 and GB:

I'm sure HT will be impressive, but even when paired with GB, I think 30% may be bit optimistic.

 

[MadRat]

You can speculate all you want on HT, but so far its looking risky to enable. Its not the end-all answer for Intel, although it will make system response seem better. The programming to take advantage of HT just isn't there.

I wonder what Barton will have in order to compete with HT.

 

[mechBgon]

30% performance increase in Q3 with HT enabled? Think for a minute... how much does Q3 speed up when it's actually run with SMP enabled on a real SMP system? 10%? And HT is going to raise it 3 times as much as a real SMP system?

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

And like I have said I am planing to buy the 2.53GHz on aug 25th/sept 1st when it drops to $250, that is a weeks paycheck for me And I will post benchies and shut everyone up once and for all

SSXeon

If you want me to post benches, just tell me. I've got a 2.53GHz P4 running on an Asus P4T533-C w/ 1GB of PC1066 RDRAM. No [non OC'ed] DDR chipset can compete with that (yet). Seriously, just tell me which ones to run and I'll go for it.

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
30% performance increase in Q3 with HT enabled? Think for a minute... how much does Q3 speed up when it's actually run with SMP enabled on a real SMP system? 10%? And HT is going to raise it 3 times as much as a real SMP system?

Yeah...but then look at an application that will benefit from multiple threads running in parallel, like 3ds Max or Maya. Then you see at least a 30% performance boost. And I think HT will be a feature that programs in the future will benefit from, just like SSE2 is now beginning to be. Compilers and programmers must change to take full advantage of HT.

 

[mechBgon]

It would be interesting to see some Caligari trueSpace 4.3 rendering and animation benchmarks, but I'm not sure you'd have the patience to wait ~12 hours for the completion of the one I have in mind...

How about... *thinks a minute* ...how about using WinZip to compress a large batch of files at maximum compression? Got a Unreal Tournament Disc 1 you could copy to HDD and compress from there? That would be an interesting benchmark, and I might try it on my A7V333 system at work tomorrow, for the heck of it. In fact, I think I'll try it on my Duron/K7S5A system here. Not sure how it will do with just 256Mb of PC133. Stay tuned...

 

[mechBgon]

jbond, my primary point is that Mr. Xeon is getting a little carried away with his speculations. However, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this quote from Anand's initial HT article:

Currently, the way most desktop users use their PCs is much like the example we gave at the beginning of this section where the CPU is given very similar operations to execute. The unfortunate reality here is that with very similar operations there comes additional overhead in managing and dealing with what happens when you run out of one type of execution unit and have twice as many instructions requiring its use. In the majority of cases, if you were to enable Hyper-Threading on a desktop PC you would not see a performance increase, rather a 0 - 10% decrease in performance.

On a workstation there is more potential for Hyper-Threading to result in an overall performance gain, but the term workstation is so broad that it can mean everything from a high-end 3D rendering system to a heavily used desktop PC.

The area where performance gains are the most likely today is under server applications because of the varied nature of the operations sent to the CPU. Transactional database server applications can see a 20 - 30% boost in performance just by enabling Hyper-Threading. Lesser but tangible gains can be seen on web servers as well as other application areas.

 

[mechBgon]

All righty then Here's my benchie, let's see your results for comparison:

• make a New Folder in C:\
• copy the contents of Unreal Tournament Disc 1 to C:\New Folder. It should have a total of 814 files, 639,820,189 bytes (644,366,336 bytes used). I suppose a Game-of-the-Year edition disc is going to be different...
• defrag your hard drive
• reboot and kill off background programs
• go into C:\ and right-click New Folder > WinZip > Add to Zip file...
• choose Maximum (slowest) compression and time how long the compression takes

My system managed it in 4 minutes 53 seconds. Relevant info:

• CPU: Duron 1@1.33GHz, 133MHz FSB
• RAM: 256Mb Crucial PC133@133, most aggressive BIOS timings
• Motherboard: ECS K7S5A
• OS: Win98SE
• Hard drive/controller: Seagate Barracuda ATA IV (7200rpm)/Onboard SiS IDE controller
• Favorite flavor of ice cream: Chocolate

I realize this introduces a ton of variables and isn't a "serious" benchie, but I'm still interested in seeing peoples' results. This benchmark should work the RAM and CPU for the most part... even with just 256Mb of RAM, I didn't see an appreciable amount of HDD activity. edit: I'm assuming WinZip 8.1 here, by the way.

edit #2: I guess this could be difficult for people with "disc-less" versions of UT...

 

[Duvie]

This thread is a loss...

Ppl bsing about cars and sound like 18 year-old street racers...go get a spitter pipe on your honda civics and shut the hell up...

As for this thread ppl need to stop talking about hammer...it is pure speculation and most of you likely will look like fools when it comes out...


I like mechbgon's idea of actually helping ppl in this forum with real-world sh^t instead of ipe dreaming and jacking yourselves silly over car analogies...

 

[Wingznut]

mechBgon, I'll run a benchmark on my 2.4 a little later tonight. I can even run it at 133fsb and 100fsb, if you'd like.

 

[mechBgon]

Run it at whatever you run your system at normally, Wingnut PEZ, I'm sure it will tromp my little Duron by a factor of 100% (edit: or more!). Just don't forget to specify the favorite flavor of ice cream...

 

[Wingznut]

My system managed it in 3 minutes 39 seconds.

• CPU: P4-2.4b
• RAM 512mb Crucial PC2100@333 (default timings)
• Motherboard: EPoX EP-4G4A+
• OS: WinXP
• HD: Seagate Barracuda ATA IV / Onboard controller
• Favorite ice cream: Baskin Robbins World Class Chocolate (is there any other flavor???)

I wasn't able to defrag my HD, though. I mean, it would defrag... But then it would tell me that many programs wouldn't defrag. And that turned out to be well over half of my data. (Not sure what the issue is there.)

 

[jbond04]

mechBgon, as soon as I get my UT CD back from my friend, I'll run the benchmark. Just to let you know, however, I think a lot of this benchmark will depend on your HD as well as memory and CPU. So, since I have a RAID array with 2 40GB IBM 120GXP's, I'm not sure how well we can compare. But I'll be more than happy to oblige!

And as for what Anand said about HT...

His thoughts were posted on current applications. Most applications for consumers today are not multithreaded, so they will not realize much of a benefit from HT at all. And there are also certain operations which do not benefit from HT at all. I believe Intel is working with programmers to create a compiler that will allow an HT-enabled CPU to execute certain portions of code that would not benefit from HT in "non HT mode".

When Hyperthreading was first announced, Intel was touting a 30% performance boost in Maya, an application which does take advantage of multiple threads. I think the most professional CAD/3D rendering programs (especially 3D rendering programs) will benefit from HT, since they pretty much all take advantage of multiple threads.

I think that once developers begin to recognize how to take advantage of HT, that we will see only performance boosts coming from this technology. And I'm sure that these boosts won't be immediate, just like with SSE2. I think that as HT matures, and compilers and programmers improve, that HT will make a significant difference in performance. Otherwise, I don't think Intel would have invested the resources in such a technology needed to bring it to the mainstream desktop. However, I do know that HT will currently add to the value of any workstation in a professional graphics environment (which is where I work).

DISCLAIMER: I do not own a Hyperthreading-enabled processor.

 

[lRageATMl]

Originally posted by: Duvie
This thread is a loss...

Ppl bsing about cars and sound like 18 year-old street racers...go get a spitter pipe on your honda civics and shut the hell up...

As for this thread ppl need to stop talking about hammer...it is pure speculation and most of you likely will look like fools when it comes out...


I like mechbgon's idea of actually helping ppl in this forum with real-world sh^t instead of ipe dreaming and jacking yourselves silly over car analogies...

calm down now..there's nothing wrong with having a little fun.

 

[MadRat]

<<I wasn't able to defrag my HD, though. I mean, it would defrag... But then it would tell me that many programs wouldn't defrag. And that turned out to be well over half of my data. (Not sure what the issue is there.)>>

The issue has to do with system level files. Windows has always had trouble shifting system files from one section of disk space to another. Third party software, like Diskkeeper, will do it. The bad thing about it is that it usually requires a reboot before you can move on to anything else. That would pretty much skew your benchmarks. This is why defrag would make a poor benchmark.

 

[mechBgon]

jbond04, it will be interesting to see your result with both very fast RAM and a RAID as well. I'll try it on my work system too, for the heck of it.

 

[Mingon]

What about cpurightmark ? from here
I have a Athlon xp @ 10.5 x 166 I can do some benches on

ALso what about the ars testbench from here

Cosworth did not combine two 3.0V6 engines for the Aston Martin V12's, they cast the blocks themselves.

ssxeon - Actually its a develpoment of the engine first used in the ford gt90 concept car - it was then given to cosworth for use in the aston. Cosworth now (iirc) is owned by both Audi and Ford, audi own the racing section, Engineering, Manufacturing, Casting units and Racing unit trading as Cosworth Racing Ltd sold to Ford Motor.

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
jbond04, it will be interesting to see your result with both very fast RAM and a RAID as well. I'll try it on my work system too, for the heck of it.

What's in your system at work?